Supreme Court declines to review free speech case involving student who wore 'only two genders' shirt
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a Massachusetts student who was banned from school for wearing a shirt criticizing the transgender movement on Tuesday.
The student, Liam Morrison, brought the case through his father and stepmother, Christopher and Susan Morrison. The plaintiffs argue Nichols Middle School violated his free speech rights when it banned him from wearing two T-shirts to school with the words "There are only two genders" and "There are [censored] genders" on the front.
Liam was sent home both times after he refused to change shirts. The school argued the shirts made his classmates feel unsafe, and a federal court agreed, saying the message was demeaning for transgender students.
Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both issued separate dissents, arguing the court should have taken up the case.
The decision comes nearly a year after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Liam and his parents in June 2024, finding that the school was justified in asking him to remove the shirt and sending him home when he refused.
Read On The Fox News App
Judge Orders University Of California Workers To End Strike Protesting Response To Anti-israel Protests
Morrison, who was in seventh grade at the time, was sent home with his father in May 2023 after he refused to take off the shirt, according to court documents. He later wore the same shirt with the words "only two" covered with a piece of tape on which "censored" was written. The school also told him to take this shirt off.
In a 2023 interview with Fox News Digital, Liam stressed that his T-shirt was not directed toward anyone, specifically people who are "lesbian or gay or transgender or anything like that."
Click To Get The Fox News App
"I'm just voicing my opinion about a statement that I believe to be true," he said at the time. "And I feel like some people may think that I'm imposing hate speech, even though it's not directed towards anyone."
The Morrison family was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Massachusetts Family Institute.Original article source: Supreme Court declines to review free speech case involving student who wore 'only two genders' shirt
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Defense Rests In NYC Rape Retrial; Closing Arguments Now, Then Case Goes To Jury
Harvey Weinstein is one crucial step closer to learning what his fate will be at the hands of the jury in his New York rape retrial. After a morning session in front of Judge Curtis Farber haggling over material that may or may not go to the jury (it won't), Weinstein's Arthur Aidala-led defense rested its case – without calling its client to testify for himself. Moving deftly, the proceedings are now in closing arguments, with Aidala pleading Weinstein's merits before the jurors. More from Deadline Harvey Weinstein Won't Testify In His Own Defense In NYC Sex Crimes Retrial; Jury Deliberations May Start Tuesday Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd "Never Work Again" Harvey Weinstein's Move For Mistrial Fails On Second Day Of Rape Retrial - Update Closing arguments from the defense and the Manhattan District Attorney's office are expect to go on for a few hours, but the plan is the jury will have the case by the end of the day. At that point, the seven-woman, five-man panel will go behind closed doors to come to their verdict. The 73-year-old once powerful producer will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars if the jury hearing his retrial in New York convicts him on any of the three charges against him. Back in 2020, in Weinstein's now dismissed first Empire State rape case, the jury then took about five days to come to a verdict of guilty on two of five counts: third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. In March of that year, an openly shocked Weinstein was sentenced to 23-years in state prison by now pink slipped New York Supreme Court Judge James Burke. In this retrial, while the single count of third degree rape that Weinstein is facing carries a maximum sentence of four years, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. As well as the numerous cases of assaulting well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say Weinstein used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and mini-studio boss to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what were almost always false promises of work and careers in film and television, Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters. Fronted by the flamboyant Aidala, Weinstein's defense has sought to prove that the relationships between Weinstein and his accusers were long-running, consensual and mutually exploitive –-a 'friends with benefits' arrangement, as Aidala said in opening arguments, where sex was traded for access to Weinstein's professional network. Jurors in the rape and sexual assault retrial heard from two accusers, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley, who also testified in graphic detail against Weinstein five years ago in his first criminal trial in New York. A third accuser testifying in the retrial, Kaja Sokola, was not part of the 2020 case: Sokola's accusation, that Weinstein assaulted her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2006, was the basis of a new charge — first-degree criminal sexual act — added to a revised grand jury indictment of the Pulp Fiction producer. Prosecutors secured the indictment last September, after Weinstein's 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence were overturned in April of 2024. A New York Court of Appeals ruled that the judge overseeing Weinstein's first trial, James Burke, had deprived the defendant of a fair trial by allowing uncharged testimony from other women who told jurors that Weinstein had sexually abused them. 'The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light,' according to the 4-3 ruling. Weinstein did not testify at his first trial. The potential hazards of a wide-ranging cross examination were apparently a factor in his decision over the weekend to also not take the stand at the retrial. 'He wanted to testify, and we respect that instinct,' Weinstein's longtime spokesperson Juda Engelmayer told Deadline on Monday. 'At this stage, doing so would subject him to scrutiny far beyond the scope of the current charges — raising issues that could unfairly damage his credibility. Our position is one of caution, not evasion.' Weinstein remains in custody in New York because of his 2022 criminal conviction in Los Angeles. He s appealing that conviction and 16-year prison sentence for raping and assaulting a woman, identified only as Jane Doe, in 2013. Weinstein has denied ever committing rape or coercing anyone sexually. In a jailhouse interview last month with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, he said, 'I swear that before God and the people watching now and on my family. I'm wrongfully accused. But justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.' Since this retrial started in late April, the ailing Weinstein has shuttled between a downtown Manhattan courthouse and the jail wing of a nearby hospital, Bellevue. Citing his various ailments, as he has in previous trials at pivotal points, the once acclaimed producer has lobbied hard to stay out of New York's infamous Rikers Island jail, telling Judge Farber the conditions there are life-threatening. Farber decided in the first week of the retrial to allow Weinstein to stay at the historic hospital during the proceedings. On the subject of his medical needs ,Weinstein underwent emergency heart surgery in September and was diagnosed with cancer in October. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More Everything We Know About 'Happy Gilmore 2' So Far
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Challenges posed by Trump and Putin push UK to adopt new NATO first defense policy
The U.K. on Monday announced new plans to overhaul its defensive posture in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and potential challenges posed by President Donald Trump's threat to withdraw U.S. troops from the continent. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would bring his country to "war-fighting readiness" by investing dozens of billions of dollars in the building of 12 submarines, weapons and munitions manufacturing, AI and other tech, and most notably, a significant investment in nuclear deterrence. The announcement came after a Strategic Defense Review by an external board found several areas in the U.K. that need to improve in order to effectively deter aggressors like Russia, as well as North Korea, Iran and China. Macron Chides Trump, China Over Trade, Ukraine, Gaza: Policies 'Will Kill Global Order' While the review heavily focused on changes that need to be made to the U.K.'s defense readiness, it also identified a need to bolster societal resilience and support. "Our response cannot be confined to increasing defense spending," Starmer said in a statement from the report. "We also need to see the biggest shift in mindset in my lifetime: to put security and defense front and center—to make it the fundamental organizing principle of government." Read On The Fox News App The 144-page plan released by the British government on Monday laid out a new defense strategy to tackle threats "more serious and less predictable than at any time since the Cold War." However, the biggest investment the U.K. revealed in its defense overhaul is a near $20.3 billion commitment to its nuclear warhead program in a move to expand its deterrence level, which, the report said, "sends the ultimate warning to anyone who seeks to do us harm." The push has been described as a "NATO first" policy that will heavily focus on the immediate threats posed by Russia to the European continent. However, the plan is not a "NATO only" policy. Ukraine-russia Peace Talks Yield No Ceasefire, Zelenskyy Warns Putin Should Not Be 'Rewarded' The U.K. plans to produce a new submarine every 18 months until it secures a fleet of up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS program, which is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. – which focuses on security and stability in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the face of increased Chinese aggression in the region. Defense Secretary John Healey said, "We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for U.K. defense." Starmer ordered the review last summer, shortly after he secured the top job. Security experts have warned that the threat Russia poses as it advances its war machine is assessed to be a generational threat, and one that will likely out-live the war in Ukraine or even a Putin presidency, and European nations have been scrambling to react to the new reality. The re-election of Trump became another challenge European leaders have grappled with. Though Trump pushed Nato leaders to increase their defense spending during his first term, most nations did not meet their GDP defense spending commitments under NATO until after Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, just eight of the 32 NATO nations do not meet the 2% GDP spending commitments, while five nations, including the U.S. spend more than 3%. NATO nations have increasingly called for an increase in defense spending and a push to be less dependent on the U.S.'s military industrial base. While the U.K. has pledged to spend 2.5% of its GDP on defense by 2027, with an increase to 3% by 2030, Trump has called for NATO nations to spend 5% -- though the alliance has not yet agreed to such a plan, which the U.S. also falls short on, spending 3.38% according to figures released in 2024. The U.K. is also looking to take more of a leadership role in NATO, particularly as the reliability of the U.S. has been called into question amid the war in Russia, and amid threats by Trump that he may drawdown troop numbers in article source: Challenges posed by Trump and Putin push UK to adopt new NATO first defense policy
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Key R.I. House committee poised to vote to advance ban on assault-style weapons
'I think it will be a really good day for Rhode Island,' Knight, a Barrington Democrat, said Tuesday morning. 'We will be one step closer to making Rhode Island a safer state. I'm glad the politics have finally caught up to the voters, who clearly want this legislation.' If the House approves the legislation on Thursday, as expected, attention will shift to the Senate and whether Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up The legislation stands a real chance of becoming law this year thanks in large part to former Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio, a longtime foe of such legislation who said Advertisement Senator Louis P. DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, has introduced 'I hope they do the right thing,' Knight said. 'If the bill passes in the House, I hope they pass it in the Senate, even if their Judiciary Committee is structured in a way for it to have a difficult road there.' Advertisement Governor Daniel J. McKee, a Democrat, has long backed a ban on assault-style weapons, and this year he underscored that support by Related : Tuesday's House committee vote comes one day after the Three conservative justices dissented, showing that the high court is still divided on how to handle Second Amendment cases after it expanded gun rights in a 2022 landmark decision. Another conservative justice said the Supreme Court should address the validity of bans on assault-style rifles like the AR-15 in the next term or two. Knight said none of that should prevent Rhode Island from passing a ban on assault-style weapons. 'States should generally go ahead with their legislation unless it's clearly against the law because that is how federalism works,' he said. 'On this issue in particular, I think the Supreme Court has spoken without speaking. They have had opportunity to take up assault weapons bans and haven't done it.' Ten states and the District of Columbia have similar bans on assault-style weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Advertisement In April, the Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals Massachusetts' ban 'does not impose a heavy burden on civilian self-defense,' Judge Gary Katzmann wrote on behalf of the First Circuit court, adding that those challenging it 'do not demonstrate a single instance where the AR-15 — or any other banned weapon — has actually been used in a self-defense scenario.' In Rhode Island, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider an amendment to Knight's bill that would replace a requirement that grandfathered assault weapons be registered with police. Opponents had called the requirement clearly unconstitutional. The amendment would create a voluntary program through which those who already own assault weapons could get a certificate of possession from their local police department that would serve as legally admissible proof that their weapon is grandfathered, the House said in a statement. To address concerns that such certificates would serve as a de facto registry, the amendment's language prohibits police from keeping any record of the application or granting of such certificates. Since the certificate program would be voluntary, grandfathered owners could legally opt to do nothing when the bill takes effect, the House said. The amendment also would include 'more precise definitions' of the weapons that would be prohibited, the House said. The legislation would prohibit the manufacture, purchase, sale, transfer and possession of certain assault weapons including certain types of semiautomatic shotguns, rifles and pistols. Anyone convicted of violating the ban would face criminal penalties. The bill would provide exemptions for current and retired law enforcement officers, active-duty members of the armed forces, National Guard or reserves, federally licensed firearm dealers, and anyone who lawfully possesses an assault weapon when the ban would take effect on July 1, 2026. Advertisement The House noted the ban on assault-style weapons is the only major unaddressed recommendation made by a gun-safety working group established by former governor Gina M. Raimondo after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The General Assembly has passed legislation to ban Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
